An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base. …

And yet this was suppressed even by the Bush administration which would have helped justify the invasion. The question is why? It is a foregone fact hat democrats supported the invasion while Clinton was president and which was confirmed when we went in.

Remember Scott Ritter, the UN inspector,who infamously decided there were none for some unknown reason.

In Iran inspectors are facing the same situation with the Iranians refusing to show their sites.

> And yet this was suppressed even by the Bush administration which would have helped justify the invasion.
No it wouldn’t have. Bush didn’t say “There are a few hundred random shells of chemical weapons THAT WE SOLD HIM still laying around”. He said Iraq had an active WMD program, and was approaching a nuclear weapon. All of which were complete and total lies.

No it wouldn’t have. Bush didn’t say “There are a few hundred random shells of chemical weapons THAT WE SOLD HIM still laying around”. He said Iraq had an active WMD program, and was approaching a nuclear weapon. All of which were complete and total lies.

That post is as full of bull-corn as a Christmas turkey, Cwolf. We NEVER sold Saddam any chemical weapons, though the Germans did, plus Saddam DID have an active WMD program (most of which wound up in Aleppo, Syria), and almost EVERYONE knew that he’d been pursuing a nuke.

That post is as full of bull-corn as a Christmas turkey, Cwolf. We NEVER sold Saddam any chemical weapons, though the Germans did, plus Saddam DID have an active WMD program (most of which wound up in Aleppo, Syria), and almost EVERYONE knew that he’d been pursuing a nuke.

> As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

> The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

> They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague

> The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.
>

And yet this was suppressed even by the Bush administration which would have helped justify the invasion. The question is why?
.
I saw that they found them but it was a year or year & a half later. By then the WMD subject had pretty much gone away & he didn’t feel it was smart to bring it up. Even today (as seen above) people are on both sides of the question.
.
As for nuclear weapons I never heard that. But they did have WMD IF you put chemical weapons in that category (some people don’t). And they were using them on the Kurds right along.
I remember saying at the time (somewhere else) that chemical weapons were very easy to hide. And labs where they are made can be changed up pretty easy too.

> At the time of his meeting with Saddam, Mr Rumsfeld was working for Searle - a company which dealt only in medicinal pharmaceuticals.
> Both he and Searle made all their money from the distribution of a cardiovascular drug.
> Under no circumstances did he or Searle have any connection to the production of chemicals which would have been sold to Saddam.
> And no one in the US has ever suggested that Mr Rumsfeld had any personal interest at stake in the Iraq meetings.

Just reading the above exchange with the two different view points is kind of a window into why there are so many problems in the world. Each side is sure that they are 100% right & I’m sure both sides to go out on the web & find something to support those what they said. Even applying common sense to these different views doesn’t help because both side have iron views about what happened & a person’s common sense will always support those views. It’s kind of funny in a sad way that there can be no meeting of the minds on political issues.
.
Reminds me of my sister in law. Some government program had cut back something that she was getting. My wife got to hear her rave about those “Republicans” that were out to get her. Now the big picture was that we were in the 6th year of Obama & democrats controlled congress. Added to that she lives in a always democrat state so all of the people down the line state wise were probably democrat. Yet republicans were screwing her. Total believe in one party even though logic isn’t behind you. Interesting.

What’s “sad”, Tex, is that folks like CWolf come on a basically conservative site and spout nonsense and hope to convince all of us that it’s “truth.” There is NO EVIDENCE that Rumsfeld or anyone else from the U.S. “helped” Saddam acquire WMD’s or their constituents. Not in the 80’s or at any other time.

" There is NO EVIDENCE that Rumsfeld or anyone else from the U.S. “helped” Saddam acquire WMD’s or their constituents.
.
When we are talking biological weapons from what I’ve heard they aren’t that hard to make. People tend to picture what you would see on TV & how advanced everything looks but that isn’t needed. And as I said in my post the building where they can be made can be passed off as something else. I never had any doubt that they had WMD’s because I consider chemical weapons to be WMD’s. I think that they are much more dangerous that the atom bomb because they are easier to make, deliver, & you can many times vaccinate your people so that they aren’t harmed by them. The bomb just blows everyone away & renders the area contaminated for lifetimes. Nobody would use it except as a last ditch effort.

This information was not hidden, I have been citing these facts since the first utterances from the Extreme Left about Bush “Lying about WMD’s”.

Bush did NOT lie, his course was based on the Actions and words of Saddam for over a decade regarding their unwillingness to honor the commitments they made to bring the ceasefire coupled with actionable intelligence that would (and did) give every reasonable mind justification for believing that what Saddam was threatening was entirely plausible and was in fact what he was working towards.

Toppling the Saddam regime was the right decision then and NOTHING has been learned since that would reverse that judgment, Bush was absolutely right to put Iraq in the number two spot for importance in the War on Terror.

And for all the liars who keep claiming that Bush went into Iraq primarily because of the WMD threat or because we were blaming Saddam for 9/11 , these lies can be told for eternity without becoming true.

Bush changed our Terrorism policy with the near unanimous consent from Congress, the new policy was that “The United States will now treat Nations that fund and support Terrorism no differently than we treat the Terrorists themselves”

Iraq under Saddam was CLEARLY an outspoken supporter and funding source of worldwide Terrorism, there has NEVER been a single credible voice that would argue against that fact; THAT is why we went to war with Saddam.

The WMD case was*** made to the U.N.*** in an attempt to get them to join us in the effort, the U.N. had no policy to put a stop to State Sponsored Terrorism so Saddam and Iraq had to be deemed worthy of a unified world effort for reasons OTHER than the fact that they were a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

OUR policy (enacted after 9/11) required no threat of WMD’s or anything else to put Saddam in the grave and crush his government via military force, our policy and existing Congressional consent DEMANDED that Iraq be number two after Afghanistan.

Liars mix and match selective history in order to defend the indefensible and condemn those with integrity, nothing new here.

And of course ISIS can thank Bush for doing the heavy lifting and making it possible for them to form. It never would have happened with Saddam in power, but Bush’s guy al-Maliki proved to be every bit as astute at governing Iraq as Bush was at governing America.

So there are now far more terrorists as a result of Bush “fixing” things.

Hilary Clinton voted for that war, and stumped for it before the invasion. Anyone who admired Bush’s bang-up job in the ME, would be quite pleased with a Clinton presidency, as she’ll basically be a third term of Bush on foreign policy. Incompetent and unnecessary wars are the hallmark of their respective administrations.

Complete Leftist history revision, Bush was destroying the ability of Terrorist organizations to function and anyone who says different is just trying to excuse Obama for lifting our boot off their necks to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is your side that enabled ISIS to organize and grow strong, you guys own ALL of that.

Bush was the one who set the timetable for withdrawl from Iraq. Obama of course, agreed with Bush’s policy(as he continued most of Bush’s programs). Because Obama is more like Bush on foreign policy than he is different. About the only major difference between Bush and Obama, is that Obama thought it was a better idea to constantly stick our noses in the middle east, but not commit to a full-scale war.

And of course ISIS can thank Bush for doing the heavy lifting and making it possible for them to form.
.
Don’t forget that ISIS can also thank Dwight Eisenhour from keeping those nasty Germans from controlling that area even before Bush. I guess that it’s all in the way you look at it.

Complete Leftist history revision, Bush was destroying the ability of Terrorist organizations to function and anyone who says different is just trying to excuse Obama for lifting our boot off their necks to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is your side that enabled ISIS to organize and grow strong, you guys own ALL of that.